I was just wondering from reading here. There alot of people cheering for the new Nikons and the other side cheering for MF.

How many of you actually use a MFDB and a D800, and whats the reason have/havent sold your MFDB?

Emil,I use a Hasselblad H4D31 with a 100mm f.2.2 and a 28mm f/4 and the D800 (and other Nikons) with a compliment of top Nikon lenses from ultra wide through 400mm 2.8. They are both excellent cameras, yet each one has its use and limitations and I would not dispose of the Nikons or Hasselblad gear. IMHO for portraits, most studio work, architectural and landscape phtography, the MFD provides better overall file quality and is ideal under controlled settings with a lot of light. For fast paced editorial work, I typically use the Nikons.

They are tools and its all about choosing the right tool for the job. They are both fine cameras. However, if I were starting over again today financial discretion would probably dictate a D800 over a Hasselblad.

And I'm sure you know from your fuji 680 that the roll off of focus with larger formats is much faster and that you can't compare f/stop to f/stop in terms of DOF from format to format. I witnessed in the studio that shots on the d800 at f/10 had broader DOF than my AFi-ii 12 at f/16. You can't tell me that the nikon with a f/1.4 lens is getting better blur than my AFi-ii 12 with the 50/2.8, 80/2, 110/2 or 180/2.8.

Does it mean that D800 (35mm in general) will have deeper dof when used for landscape where we want front to infinity focusing?Will that be compensated enough by using a tilt like in rm3di?

I have a D3X, D800, H4D-40 and H1 with a Leaf Aptus 22. I prefer the files from both backs over both the Nikons. I like being able to sync at 1/800 sec with the MF; I like being able to shoot quickly with the Nikons. I'll continue maintaining both 35mm and MF until it is not feasible to maintain MF (price or just simply languishing).

You are a good photographer, but I'm going to challenge you on the above statements which I believe to be untrue. It appears your experience with MF files is mostly analog and I wonder how much you've really worked with a MFDB because were you to have used one extensively I'm certain you wouldn't write the above. I presume you are only basing your statements on DXO values or brief experiences with very old digital backs. The DXO comparisons between DSLR and MF are misleading for a number of reasons already hashed through.

And I'm sure you know from your fuji 680 that the roll off of focus with larger formats is much faster and that you can't compare f/stop to f/stop in terms of DOF from format to format. I witnessed in the studio that shots on the d800 at f/10 had broader DOF than my AFi-ii 12 at f/16. You can't tell me that the nikon with a f/1.4 lens is getting better blur than my AFi-ii 12 with the 50/2.8, 80/2, 110/2 or 180/2.8.

My experience is based on many years, not only still photography, but also extensive color grading and effects in motion picture and working with color suites that cost $ 1,200 an hour.Lets avoid the personal attacks

However you do bring up and point that I should have mentioned. Three exceptional MF lenses. The 80/2 Ziess, the 110mm f2 Ziess and the Schneider 180mm 2.8. The three most exceptional lenses in MF 645 or 6x6.Plus they are also "empowered" by the viewfinder options of the camera they go on. With the Rollie it's much better for working wide open than the Hasselblad and Phase one cameras.Oh silly me to leave out the best MF digital.

However I think it is safe to say that the bokeh of several Nikon ultra fast lenses is nicer than the 2.8 and slower MF lenses.

more of his images here: Higher res too. Keep in mind these are very busy backgrounds. Look at how cleanly the foreground and background are rendered.Also keep in mind that the lighting here is quite soft so there is little depth added by contrasty light and rim light effects

(1) The images are not the same. The Leica produces a different "style" or "character" of image. It is NOT just resolution. It is the "draw". The colors with the Leica are more natural (skin tones perfect, natural shades oftone perfect). The depth of field for a give focal length is much different and hence the "fall off" and the composition will be different. The bokeh is different. There is a three dimensionality of the leica image thatis missing in the Nikon.

(2) That said, I am not saying that the D800E cannot be "as sharp". Again, resolution is not the issue, or at leastnot the sole issue, but the character of the image. Granted, I do not do studio photography or wedding photography,but rather "fine art", so what I am looking for may be different.

(3) The nikon lenses that I have (70-200, 24-70, 14-24) are NOT adequate to the meet the capabilities of theD800E. (Note the "E") The images are not quite "crisp" when you want that, and appear flat. There is a sterility or a scientific technical character to the images. Precision but not feeling.

What I may be experiencing, therefore, is not the sensor capabilities per se, but the character, nature andquality of the LENSES.

I am now exploring the use of Leica R lenses mounted on the D800E to see if I can capture the same characteras I have with the S2.

For that matter, consider the Zeiss line of lenses for the D800E. From the samples I have seen (but not yettried), they are closer to the medium format "look", which makes me wonder if the D800E IS capable ofdelivering MF quality given the proper lenses.

Also, I print my images, LARGE (20x30 is consider a normal size for me). So, I may be looking for a different look and feel than someone who is producing images for the web.

Hope this helps.

You can't make realistic sensor comparisons if one camera system is using zooms and the other primes.

TMARK,I only have the one studio session as a comparison, but I found the D800E images to have big areas of fairly flat skin color where the AFi-ii 12 (Aptus 12) showed lots of different color shades. The color differences between the two files was probably the biggest surprise actually. I only compared them in C1 and didn't look at the Nikon software or LR4. I assumed that the hue could be adjusted in post to one's liking, however what was missing was the color information. There was very high detail in the D800E file - not as much as the AFi-ii 12 but more than I was expecting. I guess at 7k pix vs 10k pix on the long side it should be pretty close so that makes sense. But the information on the D800E seemed like it was all luminosity and not color information. I have read that some DSLR's use broader overlapping RGB color filters to increase higher ISO response so this may be a contributing factor to the lack of color detail. To summarize, I felt the lack of this color information took a lot away from the Nikon files. Definitely L* detail was there. Model was nude and I don't have a release so I'm loathe to post those comparison images just for the sake of the discussion, but my take is color detail on the D800E is one area where it really fails in comparison to MFDB. Eric

C1 made by Phase One/Leaf. AFi-II 12 made by Leaf. Release 2010.

C1 only added Nikon support not long ago and I'm sure it's not mature or developed to the point Phase/Leaf support their own backs.

What I may be experiencing, therefore, is not the sensor capabilities per se, but the character, nature andquality of the LENSES.

.......

For that matter, consider the Zeiss line of lenses for the D800E. From the samples I have seen (but not yettried), they are closer to the medium format "look", which makes me wonder if the D800E IS capable ofdelivering MF quality given the proper lenses.

Zeiss is actually making a new series for DSLRs.

Much larger. This leads me to believe they are upto something.

Just look at the size of the 55mm 1.4

Look at it compared to the current 50mm 1.4 Ziess:

Much larger front element. Much longer barrel.

It seems Zeiss is designing the ideal lens without limiting itself with size constraints.

Does it mean that D800 (35mm in general) will have deeper dof when used for landscape where we want front to infinity focusing?Will that be compensated enough by using a tilt like in rm3di?

Yes, in general that is my experience. DOF is a convention based on a lot of variables - print size or magnification, assumptions about viewer distance and the eyesight of the viewer. In fact there is only one apex or plane in focus but we accept a range as being sharp enough. As the recording format size increases the roll off of sharpness from the focal point is more pronounced. It's one of the reasons larger format captures can really make the subject pop out from the rest of the image. But also why its harder to get foreground to background in focus without tilt. DOF is a big concern for macro work too.

Regarding tilt..... Here's a question... how many of the larger format cameras do you see that don't have movements? I'd say the majority of LF cameras have some movement - (while very few 35mm cameras do). Having tilt can really help!

C1 only added Nikon support not long ago and I'm sure it's not mature or developed to the point Phase/Leaf support their own backs.

Just wondering where you get your information? C1 has supported Nikons for quite some time, and adds camera models about as fast as LR. I know version 4 supported the D3x .. i used it for a while (current version is 6 with 7 imminent). I'm pretty sure Nikon support has been there for quite some time before that. There is nothing immature at all about C1's raw processing for Nikon cameras. C1 raw processing for d800 is rated extremely high by those who use it.

I have an IQ180 and a d800 with zeiss glass. Personally I find the ziess glass performs better on my NEX 7, while resolution with the d800/zeiss is great I find it challenging to get what I want out of the d800 files with LR. I assume it's not about the camera but the profiles in LR.

As far as the thread and its original question, while the d800 is a great camera, especially with top lenses, I still prefer the IQ180 files for most of what I do. The d800 is great for macro work and if I need a little telephoto reach. But it isn't enough lighter to justify in that regard. When I need a light bag, I have the Nikon Zeiss glass on a NEX 7 ... that's a great combo. In fact, the NEX 7 with Nikon adapter is the perfect backup for a Nikon shooter. Can't even tell it's in the bag ...

We actually shot the d800E with the 200/2 in the studio... its a nice lens but again, Fred, you are wrong about it having no match in MF land. Since you rely on google and other people's images go search flicker for schneider 300/4 or 180/2.8 or some of the mamiya fast teles. Actually there are plenty of MF glass out there that you apparently never used and don't know much about.

Here's a shot I took wide open with my Schneider 300mm (about the equivalent of 200mm in 35mm terms with the p20 digital back fitted) at f/4 with my older p20. Sorry couldn't find anything recent with my AFi and 300.I'm only posting to show the blur and DOF at f/4 - not a shot I used for work.

First a the full frame and then a crop to show you the actual DOF more closely. At f/4 how many mustard plant stalks can you count that are in the DOF? Compare this to the Carnival dancer woman you posted where the arm in the foreground and face and body are all in DOF and she's probably closer to the camera as well which would mean less DOF than at further out and don't forget this MFDB shot was taken at f/4 with a 1.5 crop factor p20 back. The AFi-ii 12 with the same lens and 1.1 crop factor will have significantly less.

In fact I think some 135 lenses have too short DoF, f/1.2 is not really that usable, or the f/0.95 on the Leica... I think it becomes gimmicky rather than useful. On full-body shots it may be useful in some situations, but a headshot with so short DoF that the nose tip becomes visibly out of focus does not look good.

Medium format doesn't allow for as short DoF as the largest aperture 135 lenses. f/2.8 on a 54x41mm sensor translates into ~f/1.8 on 135 full-frame (just divide aperture with the crop factor).

Personally I prefer DoFs which transitions smoothly in-and-out of focus and that you have some definition left in the background, i e not just a total blur.

What may be a medium format advantage is that you can do short DoFs with relatively simple lens designs with not so high correction, leading to better-looking bokeh. That combined with that you avoid the super-short DoFs and thus not needing gazillion of lens elements and super-high correction. However, it seems to me that with the modern 645 digital systems some of this is lost, because the strive for ultra-high resolution (i e 80 megapixels) has caused the need for highly corrected lenses also for medium format. A digital back on a Mamiya RZ or similar may be better. Not sure how much truth that lies within this, but it would be interesting to investigate.

We actually shot the d800E with the 200/2 in the studio... its a nice lens but again, Fred, you are wrong about it having no match in MF land. Since you rely on google and other people's images go search flicker for schneider 300/4 or 180/2.8 or some of the mamiya fast teles. Actually there are plenty of MF glass out there that you apparently never used and don't know much about.

Here's a shot I took wide open with my Schneider 300mm (about the equivalent of 200mm in 35mm terms with the p20 digital back fitted) at f/4 with my older p20. Sorry couldn't find anything recent with my AFi and 300.I'm only posting to show the blur and DOF at f/4 - not a shot I used for work.

First a the full frame and then a crop to show you the actual DOF more closely. At f/4 how many mustard plant stalks can you count that are in the DOF? Compare this to the Carnival dancer woman you posted where the arm in the foreground and face and body are all in DOF and she's probably closer to the camera as well which would mean less DOF than at further out and don't forget this MFDB shot was taken at f/4 with a 1.5 crop factor p20 back. The AFi-ii 12 with the same lens and 1.1 crop factor will have significantly less.

LOL Eric; I have a series that is very similar. 654D, 200mm FA @ f/6.7 BTW